Cargando…
Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs
BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30764815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0 |
_version_ | 1783395598949416960 |
---|---|
author | Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge Alvarez, Julio Culhane, Marie Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu Cano, Jean Paul Torremorell, Montserrat |
author_facet | Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge Alvarez, Julio Culhane, Marie Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu Cano, Jean Paul Torremorell, Montserrat |
author_sort | Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infected herds with low prevalence of infection. METHODS: In groups of suckling (18–21 days of age) and growing (35–45 days of age) pigs, we compared various sampling approaches to detect, isolate and sequence IAV using individual (nasal swabs, nasal wipes and oropharyngeal swabs), group (oral fluids, surface wipes and sow udder skin wipes) and environmental (airborne particles deposited on surfaces and air samples) sampling approaches. All samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and a subset was used for virus isolation and direct sequencing. RESULTS: In general, environmental and group samples resulted in higher odd ratios (range = 3.87–16.5, p-value < 0.05) of detecting a positive sample by rRT-PCR compared to individual pooled samples, except for oropharyngeal swabs (OR = 8.07, p-value < 0.05). In contrast, individual samples were most likely to yield a viral isolate by cell culture. Oropharyngeal swabs in suckling pigs (78.4%), and nasal swabs (47.6%) or nasal wipes (45%) in growing pigs, and udder wipes in lactating sows (75%) were the preferred samples to obtain an isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that group and environmental sampling strategies should be considered in influenza surveillance programs in particular if the goal is just to detect infection. This study provides new information on sampling approaches to conduct effective influenza surveillance in pigs and identifies udder wipes from lactating sows as a novel sample type that offers a convenient, cheap and sensitive manner to monitor IAV in litters prior to weaning. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6376652 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63766522019-02-27 Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge Alvarez, Julio Culhane, Marie Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu Cano, Jean Paul Torremorell, Montserrat BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Influenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infected herds with low prevalence of infection. METHODS: In groups of suckling (18–21 days of age) and growing (35–45 days of age) pigs, we compared various sampling approaches to detect, isolate and sequence IAV using individual (nasal swabs, nasal wipes and oropharyngeal swabs), group (oral fluids, surface wipes and sow udder skin wipes) and environmental (airborne particles deposited on surfaces and air samples) sampling approaches. All samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and a subset was used for virus isolation and direct sequencing. RESULTS: In general, environmental and group samples resulted in higher odd ratios (range = 3.87–16.5, p-value < 0.05) of detecting a positive sample by rRT-PCR compared to individual pooled samples, except for oropharyngeal swabs (OR = 8.07, p-value < 0.05). In contrast, individual samples were most likely to yield a viral isolate by cell culture. Oropharyngeal swabs in suckling pigs (78.4%), and nasal swabs (47.6%) or nasal wipes (45%) in growing pigs, and udder wipes in lactating sows (75%) were the preferred samples to obtain an isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that group and environmental sampling strategies should be considered in influenza surveillance programs in particular if the goal is just to detect infection. This study provides new information on sampling approaches to conduct effective influenza surveillance in pigs and identifies udder wipes from lactating sows as a novel sample type that offers a convenient, cheap and sensitive manner to monitor IAV in litters prior to weaning. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6376652/ /pubmed/30764815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge Alvarez, Julio Culhane, Marie Nirmala, Jayaveeramuthu Cano, Jean Paul Torremorell, Montserrat Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title | Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title_full | Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title_fullStr | Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title_short | Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
title_sort | comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30764815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garridomantillajorge comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs AT alvarezjulio comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs AT culhanemarie comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs AT nirmalajayaveeramuthu comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs AT canojeanpaul comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs AT torremorellmontserrat comparisonofindividualgroupandenvironmentalsamplingstrategiestoconductinfluenzasurveillanceinpigs |